What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

The problem is 'GMs Notes' isn't a style. You are taking one aspect of prep and using that to define the style. That is in my view, backwards, and it doesn't describe what you see at a table, even in the most rigid adventure path or dungeon crawl. Notes are part of it for sure. No one in their right mind would deny that you have to map the dungeon, stock it, describe it, as part of the prep process. But the prep process isn't the play process nor is it the style of play.

There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.

 

[Campbell]

It might be, I don't know (not sure what you mean by impersonal here, so I can't really say). Like I said, Godbound and Stars without Number, those are living world sandboxes. My point about living world is you need both the macro level (which is what I was just describing) and the micro level (the NPCs and factions the players are immediately dealing with). It isn't some high concept, elusive thing. And it isn't something that everyone is going to like (it does involve a lot of prep, because sandboxes by their nature require that, and it involves a lot of thinking on your toes and putting elements together rapidly: some GMs seem to have no problem with this, some have great difficulty---like with any style of play). For me, the core concept that makes this click is the idea that things in the setting have volition, treating them like live players in the game.

What I mean is that you seem incredibly focused on high level details. I am not saying there is no concern for those more personal details. Only that you seem to be much more focused on groups, logistics, and reasoning things out than representing vibrant characters with strong personalities.

We all have limited energy. That energy needs to go somewhere. Putting our focus somewhere means we are not putting it elsewhere. We only have so much time to prep and more importantly so much time and energy at the table. We all have cognitive limitations that cannot be solved by increasing work load.


Imagine we both spend the same amount of time on prep as the standard for analysis. I spend it on developing personal connections to the PCs, the immediate situation, and really developing the NPCs. You spend it on more high level details about troop movements, the interactions of various sects, and the history of your setting. How does that affect play? How do our different priorities affect where the energy and focus is during play?

 

[Bedrockgames]

@pemerton loves nuanced conversations about definitions, that's certainly true. Up to a point I agree with much of what he's had to say about shifty definitions in the hobby of exactly what that means (re living world). Saying he doesn't think a sandbox is possible is just silly though, he hasn't said that. He's even been up front about the fact that he plays from notes himself. Just because he's insisting on more granularity than you might like isn't the same thing as him bashing anything. No one is forcing you to engage in the definition game. Personally, I see that attempt as a direct result of the extent to which that particular playstyle gets valorized in general as what often gets called 'apex play'. I have no issue with someone asking for more deets there.

Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach

 

[robconley]

Like the thread title asks: what is the point of GM's notes?

They are mnemonics. Any setting has the potential to have the detail and richness of own world. That quite a handful for an individual to keep track of especially for something that enjoyed as a hobby.

And gets better, suppose one is interesting in creating a setting in general? For a novel, for a film, for a RPG campaign? How does one organize the details, to extent details are created.

The ideal is that when a question is asked, we just recall the answer on the spot and quickly move on. But that a lot to ask especially if one is starting out to create a setting. And in my experience the process to get to that point differs for everybody. Sometimes perfect recall is not even the ideal endpoint if the interest is not there.

Whether perfect recall is the goal or something short of it, a person has to come up with mnemonics as an aid to recall the details of a setting. Ideally that mnemonics should be structured with how one things about the setting, how one organizes information, and most important done in a way that fun and interesting as a hobby.

Unfortunately there are myriad ways of doing this with written GM Notes being only one of the possibilities. I personally organize things in list in chronological order or in a spatial relationship. If ask me about the Kingdom of Kaldor in Harn it is because I have a list of what in Harn in my head and Kaldor is one of the top level entries. I know a great deal about Harn, my own Majestic Wilderlands, Greyhawk, and selected other settings. But more important I remember where I can find the details. Because while I can recite some facts about Kaldor in Harn, I definitely know where on my shelf in which book, and which chapter I can find anything written about Kaldor.

When It comes to the Majestic Wilderlands, I have more of it in my head than just about any other setting. But even there there are limits. So as with Harn, I know where to go onto my computer or filing box to find the details of a character or locale.

I know the discussion is up to page 95 now. But I hope folks find my insight to the OP useful.

 

[pemerton]

So, in that instance, were you playing to discover your own conception of the fiction?

<snip>

I see that below, you describe it as the players learning the GM's notes. Are you considering the GM to be a player in this? I'm curious about your thinking regarding the GM's intents and priorities.

I think that when the game is in these "exploration" phases - when the GM is telling the players about the setting their PCs are experiencing - the GM and players are doing very different things, and its rather asymmetrical. I don't see the GM as learning anything (except in the case where s/he is reading the module as s/he goes along!).

Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977 ed, p 8) has this to say about making sense of world profiles (like the one I had generated for the gas giant moon):

At times, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made.​

So when I look at the situation I have - no atmosphere, but quite a few people, with the orbital features I described, and established as having been of interest to the aliens 2 billion years ago, and it having been established that the aliens had a mineral which may well have come from the moon - I have to make something up. Generate something, in the words of the book. What I described in my earlier post is what I came up with!

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach

Where have I posted that "sandboxes" aren't possible?

I have posted that they don't author themselves, and that no amount of detail will generate unique solutions like 2+2 = 4.

I have also posted that the "world" that the players "explore" is an idea that the GM has; and that the "exploration" consists in learning things from the GM. You call the GM's idea a "mental model" but I don't agree that it's a model because it doesn't generate unique solutions. And you agree that there is conversation but don't agree that the players learn things from the GM (I don't think) - but I'm still not sure how you think they learn it.

Pemerton has made a consistent point of attacking the approaches I have advocated and undermining us at every turn in these conversations.

Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post.

And 'playing to discover GMs notes' emerged as a point of critique in one fo those threads by Pemerton).

It's not a "critique". It's a description, of a certain sort of play. If you don't think it describes your play then I don't even get why it bothers you: I'm not particularly applying it to you. In this thread I expressly applied it to @Emerikol, who was talking about enjoying the exploratory aspect of play and learning about the GM's world.

 

[robconley]

@pemerton example about using Traveller World Stats is why I make sure I highlight the "Bag of Stuff" when I discuss my approach to running sandbox campaign. As referee we are not omniscience Gods just normal folks with normal abilities ranges of being able to remember stuff trying to have fun with a hobby. But when players go left instead of right we are confronted of having to come up with details great and small one the spot.

A way to overcome that is to develop a mental "Bag of Stuff". A bunch of generic locales, characters, and personalities that you can put out, tweak a bit and use on the spot. It is rare to have to come with everything needed so often sufficient to just record what you do say and then later flesh it out to whatever level of detail you think is needed or find fun.

For example think of a peasant hut. Think of what could be in a peasant hut. Think of the layout of a peasant. Now come up with two or three variation of that. (One room, two rooms two rooms with a loft). Then occasionally think about peasant huts, knights, villages reeves, from time to time until you are comfortable with recalling these details. Now you just added to your "Bag of Stuff" and don't have to sweat it if the players decide to enter some random peasant's hut and you don't have anything prepared.

From Traveller it things like different type of Gas Giants, planet types, settlement types. How many ways can a Class E starport with a single building, some tanks and an unimproved landing area can be laid out?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post.

I was talking about previous threads. It is entirely possible my memory is wrong or slanted. But my impression when we’ve discussed sandboxes, living worlds, open worlds, is that you were hostile to them (and very skeptical of a GM to run one where players any kind of real freedom to explore) and felt that an approach where players have more direct control of the fiction was superior.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.

Which style ? I was not aware a problematic style had been singled out

 

[prabe]

I think that when the game is in these "exploration" phases - when the GM is telling the players about the setting their PCs are experiencing - the GM and players are doing very different things, and its rather asymmetrical. I don't see the GM as learning anything (except in the case where s/he is reading the module as s/he goes along!).

Oh, I agree that there's asymmetry between the GM and the players, and what they're experiencing. I think I'm getting at the idea that the GM has goals, intentions, and priorities, and their experience of play of this sort doesn't have to be limited to "play to discover the notes." (Aside: I cannot imagine running a published adventure without having read it first--I find them difficult enough to run, with prep.) So, if the players are playing to discern my conception of the world--which I think covers both "see what's in my notes" and "get me to make something up"--then maybe it can be said that I'm playing to discern the players' conceptions of their characters; I'm playing to find out what the PCs do. If I just wanted to world-build (or otherwise conceptualize settings) I wouldn't have to run a TRPG to do that.

So when I look at the situation I have - no atmosphere, but quite a few people, with the orbital features I described, and established as having been of interest to the aliens 2 billion years ago, and it having been established that the aliens had a mineral which may well have come from the moon - I have to make something up. Generate something, in the words of the book. What I described in my earlier post is what I came up with!

Maybe another part of the fun for the GM--other than seeing what the PCs do--is the rush of spontaneous creativity (which is different from the rush of structured creativity, IME). I don't doubt that you find it fun to be put on the spot to make up setting details, like connecting the dots of the generated results for that world; I absolutely enjoy improvising details in-the-moment (like the results of a legend lore I didn't foresee, or figuring out what this thing I noted exists actually is) at least as much as sitting alone and working out the political structure/s in a city.